Unifarm idears from Back to Basics

[dapaterson]

We have that already. Authorized alternatives, including but not limited to "Sapper" "Gunner" and a few others.

It's typically neglected in favor of clarity. The artillery are the only ones who get uppity about it.

They are definitely NOT authorized.  Used everywhere, but, strictly speaking, their use is a contravention of an order.

QR&O 3.01, "Ranks and Designations of Ranks", is clear that that we are only to use Column I of the Schedule to the NDA to designate ranks except for individuals wearing a naval uniform, who are to be referred to using Column II of the Schedule.

Terms such as "Gunner, Sapper, Craftsman" are under Column III and are therefore not authorized or approved, and using them is, in fact, contrary to an order issued by the Governor General in Council.


For fun (and if you're sure you can outrun them) you can raise this issue with the friends of St Barbara.

 

[Biggoals2bdone]

We have that already. Authorized alternatives, including but not limited to "Sapper" "Gunner" and a few others.

Those are only for 2 trades, combat engineer, and artillery.  I meant CF wide.  In the manner that say the americans have Privates and Private First Class.

I also bring this up because of something at work today that someone said, because they had to go through a crap load of pers and identify what element they were based on rank, name ad service number....obviously iy was easy to distinguish the Navy pers, its going to be difficult to differ the AF from the Army pers, why is it that the army and AF don't have distinguishing rank names between elements?

 

[George Wallace]

I actually do want to know why the AF is still using Army ranks. I know they all became the same in 68, and the Navy fought hardest against it... but did the Air Force not go back due to budgetary concerns, or was it being the youngest of three services, or for some other reason?

As Old Sweat posted: the Air Force is not using Army ranks; it is using  CF  ranks.

 

[Biggoals2bdone]

George: no offense, but instead of posting a smart-aleck comment, that in no way furthers the discussion, why not make THAT point but also add on to the ACTUAL question.

you're talking semantics, but you're not answering his question.

 

[lethalLemon]

George: no offense, but instead of posting a smart-aleck comment, that in no way furthers the discussion, why not make THAT point but also add on to the ACTUAL question.

you're talking semantics, but you're not answering his question.

But he's right though.

Did you think that maybe he doesn't know the answer?

 

[George Wallace]

George: no offense, but instead of posting a smart-aleck comment, that in no way furthers the discussion, why not make THAT point but also add on to the ACTUAL question.

you're talking semantics, but you're not answering his question.

???    Smart-aleck comment?  It isn't smart-aleck at all.  It is a fact.  The Air Force and Army are using the CF rank structure as stated by Old Sweat [Sorry] dapaterson  in his post.  If that offends you then please take a stress tab.  You may notice that the Army is also not using ARMY RANKS, but CF ranks as well.

 

[Journeyman]

George: no offense, but instead of posting a smart-aleck comment, that in no way furthers the discussion, why not make THAT point but also add on to the ACTUAL question.

you're talking semantics, but you're not answering his question.

A response is not "smart-aleck" simply because it doesn't support your argument.

George was simply being factual in stating that they are CF ranks, vice Army ranks. The Army no longer uses it's former "Lance-Corporal"; the Air Force does not use "LAC."*

Does it harm Canadian Airforce identity to no longer have an aircraft in the inventory called a "Canuck"? Perhaps the Chief of the Air Staff realized that, and so "didn't fight as hard as the Navy" to bring back pre-1968 ranks, which, by the way, may prove difficult to align with 2010 pay grades.

Sorry, but his point was obvious to readers not clutching at straws to support a proposition which apparently has so little utility or support.


* Not using LAC is just as well, because with the current awkwardness of discussing "soldiers, sailors, and airmen, uh airwomen...airpersons" it would be Leading Air Craftsman oh damn, uh  Craftswomen  ...Craftspeople." For a logically-similar discussion, read through the 28 pages (so far) here regarding bringing back "RCN" and "RCAF." (The discussion morphed into changing "Maritime Command" to "Navy," which I would concede may be more valid, but still a low priority).

 

[Pusser]

The matter of Air Force personnel using traditional air force ranks has been discussed.  The gist of the discussion was that because the Canadian Air Force now works more closely with the USAF than the RAF, it causes less confusion for Canada to continue with the CF rank structure for it's Air Force personnel. 

 

[Neill McKay]

George was simply being factual in stating that they are CF ranks, vice Army ranks. The Army no longer uses it's former "Lance-Corporal"; the Air Force does not use "LAC."*

True, but the CF rank structure is minimal adaptation of the Canadian Army rank structure in use immediately before unification so it's not much of a stretch to think of it as an "army" rank structure.

* [size=8pt]Not using LAC is just as well, because with the current awkwardness of discussing "soldiers, sailors, and airmen, uh airwomen...airpersons" it would be Leading Air Craftsman oh damn, uh  Craftswomen  ...Craftspeople."

Leading Aircraftsman, cf. Leading Seaman.  (But I do see a distinction between the centuries-old "seaman" ranks and a newly introduced rank; the latter might be an uphill battle and could even sink "seaman" with it.)

 

[Pusser]

Actually Pusser, you are even confusing yourself: CPOs and  PO1's wore the "fore and aft - three rows" (as opposed to the officers "fore and aft - four rows") and did not as a result wear the GC's (only worn on the "square rig"). This of course only happened after 1949, when the RCN rank structure was brought in line with the army and airforce one. Before that there was only one rank of Petty Officer and one rank of Chief Petty Officer and only the CPO wore the "fore and aft".

Happy centennial everyone !

I think your memory is a bit foggy.  GCs were most definitely worn on the Class I (fore and aft rig) by petty officers and lower ranks who did not wear Class II (square rig) uniform.  Only CPOs did not wear GCs.  I've got pictures to prove it.

On another note, petty officers in the RCN prior to 1949 wore the Class I uniform.  When the RCN introduced the PO2 and CPO2  (in a move to align the pay structure with the other services), they assigned the Class II uniform to PO2s and Class I to PO1s.  It's also worth noting that PO2s were initially treated as junior ranks and did cleaning stations.

 

[George Wallace]

True, but the CF rank structure is minimal adaptation of the Canadian Army rank structure in use immediately before unification so it's not much of a stretch to think of it as an "army" rank structure.

No it is not.  Both the Air Force and the Army had to compromise on the CF ranks.  Both had Staff Sergeant, WO 1 and WO 2 ranks.  These no longer exist in the new CF rank structure.  Both had Cpls and Sgts, and those did not see any change, until the creation of the CF MCpl.  As mentioned, both had different levels of Pte/AC depending on what training and qualifications one had completed, of which none exist officially in the CF rank structure of today.   

 

[Loachman]

The RCAF had Flight Sergeants vice Staff Sergeants, actually.

But that's only half of the rank structure anyway - the entire RCAF Officer ranks disappeared, which was a good thing too as they made little no sense. If we regressed to those now, we would have Group Captains commanding Wings, Wing Commanders commanding Squadrons, Squadron Leaders commanding Flights, and Flight Lieutenants commanding themselves, and occasionally other crewmembers.

 

[Biggoals2bdone]

We can argue smart-aleck comment or not all day.

but fact of the matter is that you didn't answer the question posed...which was why aren't more air force themed ranks used a la Navy...you just point blank said they are not Army or AF ranks...they are CF ranks...which wasn't the question posed...nor did it further the intended discussion.

 

[Neill McKay]

No it is not.  Both the Air Force and the Army had to compromise on the CF ranks.  Both had Staff Sergeant, WO 1 and WO 2 ranks.  These no longer exist in the new CF rank structure.  Both had Cpls and Sgts, and those did not see any change, until the creation of the CF MCpl.  As mentioned, both had different levels of Pte/AC depending on what training and qualifications one had completed, of which none exist officially in the CF rank structure of today. 

Only the army had privates (of any variety), second lieutenants, lieutenants (as subalterns), captains, majors, colonels, and generals (of any variety) -- all of them in the same places as they are in the CF rank structure.  It looks very green, with at most a vague hint of blue.

 

[George Wallace]

We can argue smart-aleck comment or not all day.

but fact of the matter is that you didn't answer the question posed...which was why aren't more air force themed ranks used a la Navy...you just point blank said they are not Army or AF ranks...they are CF ranks...which wasn't the question posed...nor did it further the intended discussion.

Reply # 60

They are definitely NOT authorized.  Used everywhere, but, strictly speaking, their use is a contravention of an order.

QR&O 3.01, "Ranks and Designations of Ranks", is clear that that we are only to use Column I of the Schedule to the NDA to designate ranks except for individuals wearing a naval uniform, who are to be referred to using Column II of the Schedule.

Terms such as "Gunner, Sapper, Craftsman" are under Column III and are therefore not authorized or approved, and using them is, in fact, contrary to an order issued by the Governor General in Council.


For fun (and if you're sure you can outrun them) you can raise this issue with the friends of St Barbara.

Asking a question as to why something is not done, after an answer has been posted already explaining why it is done, is insulting. 

 

[George Wallace]

Only the army had privates (of any variety), second lieutenants, lieutenants (as subalterns), captains, majors, colonels, and generals (of any variety) -- all of them in the same places as they are in the CF rank structure.  It looks very green, with at most a vague hint of blue.

:

You left out Brigadiers and Field Marshalls. 

 

[Biggoals2bdone]

If you go by that list in the QR&O's, the Naval ranks are not to be used (because they do not appear), so it must be outdated or erroneous.

You may think it rude/insulting that someone ask for an answer when YOU consider it answered already...but I consider it just as rude when someone answers what I consider to be a different question then the one I ask.

I'm not asking why don't we use colloquial names for ranks (i.e Sapper, Gunner, etc)...but why the Navy has its own element specific ranks while the other 2 elements do not.

 

[George Wallace]

:

OK.  I'll bow down to your superior effluence.

 

[Journeyman]

.....why the Navy has its own element specific ranks while the other 2 elements do not.

Apparently the Commanders of the Army and Airforce don't consider it nearly as earth-shatteringly important as you do.

I can't imagine what your small goals must be.  :

 

[Loachman]

I'm not asking why don't we use colloquial names for ranks (i.e Sapper, Gunner, etc)...but why the Navy has its own element specific ranks while the other 2 elements do not.

As I said, the RCAF Officer ranks make no sense. In addition to my earlier response, few "Pilot Officers" today would be Pilots, and few "Flying Officers" would fly.

I have seen a lot of stupid ideas getting much more support than they should (which is none), so I am rather surprised that returning to a ridiculous rank structure hasn't found a champion yet.